• [deleted]

  • Post #6

Thanks for saying my essay is "still very comprehensible even though cut short". That means a lot to me ... Dr. Phil :) I see you coped well with the length restraint.

I do agree that Einstein's view on the necessity of mathematics is correct ... to an extent. I've found maths to be essential, but I must confess that the reliance science has on equations seems old-fashioned to me. Scientists are searching for the Theory of Everything (or Unified Field Theory) but believe they can only find it using equations that are based on the idea of separateness. How can a theory of unification be achieved by clinging to the oldfashioned idea that this thing is separate from that thing and 1 1 = 2 separate things? This is how maths began thousands of years ago when our ancestors had no concept of anything existing beyond the things we can only see as separate.

As for the explanation of dark energy and dark matter (in my essay before I cut it short), it seemed like a waste of space to include equations. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein have already written the fundamental equations in their theories of gravitation. I didn't want to be repetitious but have simply looked at those theories in a slightly different way that explains problems Newton and Einstein didn't need to deal with (dark energy and dark matter).

  • [deleted]

  • Post #7

I took the time to read what you said about dark energy and dark matter in your original (before you had to shorten it for FQXi's length requirements). I think it's quite brilliant and clearly explains what those things really are, but I think that - and your FQXi essay - will be ignored because you left out equations. Anyway, I have a question. If gravity waves only seem to cancel at the Earth's centre, but are actually magnified and pass through to the other side, why doesn't the water from my shower end up on the bathroom ceiling?

    • [deleted]

    • Post #8

    EXPLAINING DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER

    Thanks for asking that - it's a good question. As for the equations, it seemed like a waste of space to include them. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein have already written the fundamental equations in their theories of gravitation. I didn't want to be repetitious but have simply looked at those theories in a slightly different way that explains problems Newton and Einstein didn't need to deal with (dark energy and dark matter).

    I think the best way to answer your question is to use the Sun as my example - remember, this explanation is not referring to the information content of "bits" but only to "it" (space-time and the physics we're familiar with) . Picture a gravitational wave travelling several thousand miles over the top of the sun. At a certain point, it's diverted about 4 degrees by the sun's mass. About 57% of the wave (its bottom part) is absorbed and helps to form the sun itself (this agrees with Einstein's 1919 paper saying gravitation plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles, and I think this occurs in what quantum mechanics calls Wave Packets). About 43% (its top part) continues through space and reaches Earth. Since this 43% doesn't enter the sun, it must be bent by less than 4 degrees - and as Einstein figured out before it was experimentally confirmed in 1919, this smaller refraction is 1.75 degrees (approx. 43/100 x 4/1).

    The part of the wave entering the sun travels to its core - and since gravitation forms mass, the increasing density towards the core means the wave is magnified and becomes more powerful. At the centre of the core, this wave meets a gravity wave from the other side of the sun (the other wave was passing underneath the sun before being refracted). In the sun's deepest depths, the waves meet and apparently cancel. Therefore, Newton was correct when he said an object at the centre of Earth - or the Sun's centre - weighs nothing (actually, the object weighs nothing because the apparent cancellation of the gravity waves leaves it without mass or existence).

    However, the gravity waves did not really cancel when they met. They merely lost their effectiveness because they continue to travel in the path already established by the other wave. Concentrating on the gravity wave we started with (the one that travelled over the sun), it carries its ineffectiveness right through the sun and follows the path of the gravity wave that entered the sun from below. Even after leaving the opaque photosphere ("surface" of the sun), the 1st gravity wave mentioned follows the path of the wave that entered the sun from below. It thus remains ineffective for thousands of miles, until it encounters the point where the 2nd wave was refracted. (Applying this to Earth, the gravity wave that entered the far side of the planet would have lost its effectiveness when it emerged from your side of the planet - and it would be unable to push your shower's water to the ceiling, or to overcome the gravity waves that push orbiting satellites towards the upper atmosphere.)

    When the 1st gravity wave reaches the point where the 2nd wave was refracted, Number 1 stops following No. 2's path and goes straight ahead on its own path. Here, its magnified and stronger quality resumes and it can push against the Earth or moon (if it intercepts them in the vastness of space). This contributes, to a very small extent, to the Earth moving away from the sun (by an estimated 2 to 2.8 inches per year) and the moon moving away from Earth (1.5 inches each year). Of course, the moon's and earth's inertia is far greater than the effect of gravitational waves and inertia largely keeps celestial bodies in their known orbits.

    Looking the other way (from planets to their star), gravitational waves in a magnified condition are able to transfer their increased push to an inner planet when they're absorbed by the planet in the act of mass formation (inevitably, the vast majority of magnified waves do not encounter any planet but dissipate into space). This magnification accounts for planets nearer the sun orbiting faster than those farther out i.e. for Kepler's 3rd law of planetary motion.

    The average density of the Milky Way is much less than the solar system. Picture the galaxy, except for the central dense bulge that is maybe roughly 10,000 light years in diameter, made up of solar systems like ours and separated by 4 or 5 light years (the closest star to the Sun is Proxima Centauri, 4.2 light years away). Within those systems, there is a lot of mass and density in the form of stars, planets, moons, asteroids, comets, gas, and dust. But the vast reaches of near vacuum between systems lowers average density enormously - the MacMillan Encyclopedia of Physics says the average density of matter between the stars of the Milky Way is 0.1 neutral hydrogen atoms per cubic centimetre. Since density corresponds to concentration of wave packets and magnification of gravitational waves, there would be extremely little magnifying of gravity waves in interstellar space. I suspect that if it is (very approximately) 10^15 times or a million billion times less, there would be insufficient gravitational magnification to accelerate the stars in the central core or bulge beyond the orbiting speeds of the galaxy's outermost stars (outer stars would not be sped up by the gravitational attraction of unseen Dark Matter in a halo well beyond the galaxy as astronomer Vera Rubin concluded in the 1970's).

    Rodney, Nature is a fantastic analogue computer, it solves a myriad of simultaneous equations, however I do not think it divides by zero. Keeping that in mind the holy grail of finding a "theory of everything" will look very different to expectations - it is a presumptuous to prescribe what it includes and excludes.

    10 days later

    The article "Infinite Universe" by Bob Berman (Astronomy Nov. 2012) .... is behind a paywall. What is his argument?... An infinite universe is not observable from a finite subset.

    "infinity equals the total elimination of distance."

    Total elimination of distance or space produces .....nothing. So, infinity = nothing???

      • [deleted]

      • Post #11

      Thanks for the thought-provoking comments. Everything about Astronomy magazine seems to be behind a paywall. I was receiving emails from them but I got disgusted by their worship of the holy dollar, and cancelled this service. I was tempted to stop buying the magazine but I have to continue because they provide so much valuable information.

      As for infinity = nothing, may I refer you to my article "Equation Describing the Universe" at http://viXra.org/abs/1305.0030 It explains that total elimination of distance, or space, does not produce nothing. It produces nothing physical but instead reverts the universe to the mathematical blueprint from which physical being is constructed. So, infinity = something. Here are a couple of paragraphs from the article that might make my meaning clearer -

      Let's borrow a few ideas from string theory's ideas of everything being ultimately composed of tiny, one-dimensional strings that vibrate as clockwise, standing, and counterclockwise currents in a four-dimensional looped superstring. We can visualize tiny, one dimensional binary digits of 1 and 0 (base 2 mathematics) forming currents in a Mobius loop - or in 2 Mobius loops, clockwise currents in one loop combining with counterclockwise currents in the other to form a standing current. Combination of the 2 loops' currents requires connection of the two as a four-dimensional Klein bottle. This connection can be made with the infinitely-long irrational and transcendental numbers. Such an infinite connection translates - via bosons being ultimately composed of 1's and 0's depicting pi, e, √2 etc.; and fermions being given mass by bosons interacting in matter particles' "wave packets" - into an infinite number of Figure-8 Klein bottles (each bottle becomes one of the "subuniverses" in the universe - our own subuniverse being 13.7 billion years old). Slight imperfections in the way the Mobius loops fit together determine the precise nature of the binary-digit currents (the producers of gravitational waves, electromagnetic waves, the nuclear strong force and the nuclear weak force) and thus of exact mass, charge, quantum spin, and adherence to Pauli's exclusion principle. Referring to a Bose-Einstein condensate, the slightest change in the binary-digit flow (Mobius loop orientation) would alter the way gravitation and electromagnetism interact, and the BEC could become a gas (experiments confirm that it does).

      The second part of this article addresses the scientific reasons for believing that a whole universe can be created from nothing. (See pp.179-180 of Stephen Hawking's/Leonard Mlodinow's book "The Grand Design"). It reinterprets these reasons in terms of hyperspace and entanglement, to conclude more than two-thirds of any and all parts of the universe requires no assembly at all. It seemingly appears from nothing, but actually uses the brain's positive energy which interacts with the negative energy in 5th-dimensional hyperspace (negative energy requires no work at all, according to "The Grand Design"). The remaining third is entangled with the no-work two-thirds and similarly only needs personal interaction with hyperspace (since every particle in the universe contains hyperspace, interactions can be physical e.g. using computers, manufacturing and engineering). Thus, the whole universe appears to be created from nothing but is really produced from something.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #12

      A NEW IDEA INSPIRED BY MY FQXi (FOXY) ENTRY -

      Referring to http://vixra.org/abs/1305.0030 -

      5th-dimensional hyperspace would be tinier than a subatomic particle, like the dimensions invoked by string theory (about 70% of space consists of dark energy, according to the WMAP and Planck space probes - which is interpreted in this article as 70% of a particle also consisting of dark energy since "space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles and the nuclear forces" (see paragraph about Einstein's 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). This dark energy can be associated with hyperspace and its binary digits, so a) 70% of a particle is composed of hyperspace, and b) the extra dimension also exists everywhere in empty space. With a single extra dimension of astronomical size, gravity is expected to cause the solar system to collapse ("The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimetre" by N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, G. Dvali - Physics Letters B - Volume 429, Issues 3-4, 18 June 1998, Pages 263-272, and "Gravity in large extra dimensions" by U.S. Department of Energy - http://www.eurekalert.org/features/doe/2001-10/dbnl-gil053102.php). However, collapse never occurs if gravity accounts for repulsion as well as attraction on both subatomic and astronomical scales (accounts for dark energy and familiar concepts of gravity, as well as repelling aspects of the electroweak force such as placing two like magnetic poles together and attracting electroweak/strong force aspects).

      15 days later

      I think I read somewhere that Community Evaluations for the current contest end today. To say farewell to Foxy, I'd like to post this article that was inspired by my entry. It's called "GRAVITY AND UNKNOWN SPECTRAL LINES EXPLAIN DARK UNIVERSE AND HIGGS BOSON MASS", and here's the abstract -

      The start of this article lies a few years in the past, when I wrote about the Little Ice Age experienced in Europe some 300-360 years ago. I then read an article in "Astronomy" magazine which prompted me to extend those ideas to explanation of heating the Sun's corona. On the same page of Astronomy, I was inspired by a story on unidentified spectral lines in the Sun. I thought about this, and decided it could be extended to all matter, supporting Einstein's conviction that mass is generated by gravitational-electromagnetic interactions (maybe the Higgs field is actually these interactions, for they fill the universe and are certainly capable of producing the Higgs boson, as will be explained here). In writing this, I felt the need to go into more detail frequently - about string theory, the mathematical universe, the infinite universe, the strong and weak nuclear forces, etc. (some of this is covered in previous articles I posted at www.vixra.org, www.fqxi.org and www.researchgate.net; some is new).

      All of this seems to fit together perfectly in my mind. However, I don't feel as though I've done much of the work myself. It feels like figuring out the nature of the universe is a giant jigsaw puzzle, and I've been handed the solution (if indeed I have it) piece by piece over the years and decades. This fitting together of a giant jigsaw made me think the universe isn't really such a complicated place, and reminded me of Professor John Wheeler saying - Can we ever expect to understand existence? Clues we have, and work to do, to make headway on that issue. Surely someday, we can believe, we will grasp the central idea of it all as so simple, so beautiful, so compelling that we will all say to each other, "Oh, how could it have been otherwise! How could we all have been so blind so long! "

      The scientist and philosopher in me inspire each other. They combined logic with measurement and willingness to speculate so they could produce these subheadings - Unidentified Spectral Lines; Graviton-Photon Oscillation; Relativistic Mass Increase and Time Dilation; Higgs Boson and (e∞); Quantum Entanglement and Retrocausality; Mathematical Unification; Coronal Heating (Part 1 - Little Ice Age); String Theory, the Mobius Loop and the Klein Bottle; Coronal Heating (Part 2 - Gravity and EM Interact); Nuclear Forces as Modified Gravity; Electromagnetism as Modified Gravity; Nonlinear Gravity and EM; Infinite Universe (Physically and Electronically); Brian Greene's Cosmic Movie; Something from Nothing, Something from Something; Universal Intelligence; Hidden Variables and Virtual Particles; Biogenesis; Bell's Theorem; Immortal Life; Space-time, Hyperspace and the Big Bang; Physicist John Wheeler; Equation Describing the Universe; and CHALLENGE - Explain To The Layman How Gravity Accounts For Dark Matter and Dark Energy Without Using Any Mathematics (this could have been given subheadings of its own - about Kepler's laws of planetary motion, tides, orbits, but my abstract's long enough).Attachment #1: GRAVITY_AND_UNKNOWN_SPECTRAL_LINES_EXPLAIN_DARK_UNIVERSE_AND_HIGGS_BOSON_MASS.pdf

      Dear Sir,

      How can "any fraction of infinity is essentially zero" or "infinity equals the total elimination of distance" be a valid physical or scientific statement? It is logically not consistent and does not correspond to reality.

      Number is a property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. If there are no other similars, then it is one. If there are similars, then it is many. Depending the times of perception of similars, many can be 2. 3. ....n. Zero is the spatio-temporal absence of something that exists elsewhere. Infinity is like one - without similars - with one difference. While the dimensions (the perception of difference between the "inner space" from "outer space" of an object) of one are fully perceptible, the dimensions of infinity are not perceptible. Since there are no similars like space or time and since the dimensions of space and time cannot be perceived fully, both are infinite. Infinity is not a very big number, just like zero is not a very small number. Like different objects with numbers can co-exist, different similarities can co-exist. Mathematics is possible only between numbers, whose dimensions are fully perceived. Hence mathematics using infinities is not possible. Of all physical objects, only space and time are infinite. Yet we use digital segments of these regularly.

      Length contraction and Mass increase are only apparent from the stationary frame and cannot be real for the moving frame. What the man on the platform sees cannot affect the train. The passenger on the train will not notice any length contraction. The same goes for mass increase. As per the equation, any particle traveling at the velocity of light would acquire infinite mass. This is because division by zero has been erroneously treated as infinity as explained now. If you divide 20 by 5, then what you actually do is take out bunches of 5 from the lot of 20. When the lot becomes empty or the remainder is below 5, the divisor, so that it cannot be considered a bunch and taken away further, the number of bunches of 5 are counted. That gives the result of division as 4. In case of division by zero, you take out bunches of zero. At no stage the lot becomes zero or less than zero. Thus, the operation is not complete and result of division cannot be known, just like while dividing 20 by 5, you cannot start counting the result after taking away two or three bunches. Conclusion: division by zero leaves the number unchanged. Hence no mass increase.

      However, time dilation is real in a different sense. All experiments conducted to prove time dilation are defective. Data from the first experiment available in US naval archives proves that it was fudged. Time dilation has meaning only in relative terms of cyclic evolutionary sequences. The evolutionary cycles are different for different categories or different species of the same category. Their evolution over universal time (Einstein's clock at A) can lead to comparative time dilation.

      Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the "internal structural space" from the "external relational space". Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Mathematical space always contains one dimension more than physical space. For example, a point in physical space has existence, but no dimension, but a point in mathematical space requires at least a line or intersection of lines. A straight line in physical space is the minimum distance between two points, i.e., in one dimension. In mathematical space, it must be drawn on a two dimensional paper. So on. Since the extra-dimensions have not been found even after more than a century, how long shall we perpetuate this fantasy?

      Sir, we do not follow everything blindly, as that is superstition. We apply our mind to each case. May be we are wrong. In that case the fallacies in our statements need to be pointed out. Kindly do not take our post as offensive, but a sincere query in search of truth.

      Regards,

      basudeba

        It is my honour to answer your post. I deeply respect anyone who is on a sincere search for truth. That's what science should always be about.

        I'll start by telling you a couple of things about how my mind works. First, I've had a powerful conviction that we live in a unified field or unification ever since I was a teenager. It's such a strong feeling that I take it for granted that the universe is physically unified, and I find it hard to imagine it being in any other state (despite my senses constantly telling me that everything is separate). Second, I've also had a deep mistrust of present-day mathematics since my teenage years. I'm still not sure of the reason for this. Maybe this is the reason - how can a theory of unification be achieved by clinging to the old fashioned idea that this thing is separate from that thing and 1 1 = 2 separate things? This is how maths began thousands of years ago when our ancestors had no concept of anything existing beyond the things we can only see as separate.

        There is no need for differentiation between similars. There is no "inner" and "outer" but only one (representing unification) and zero. Together with one, zero comprises the binary digits of base-2 mathematics (which seems to be the producer of space and time). Like a one-dimensional line drawn on two-dimensional paper, the "drawing" of space-time occurs in an extra dimension called hyperspace. The perception of extra dimensions only exists in the reality humans and their instruments detect. Nothing can be truly separate when we consider the universe as a unification caused by 1's and 0's, but our physical senses and scientific instruments don't detect binary digits and our senses/instruments thus reinforce the illusion of separateness. Even the 1's and 0's are united by the quantum entanglement existing throughout all space and time (in time, we call the entanglement "retrocausality"). On Earth in 2013, union of 1's and 0's is represented by the qubits in quantum computers. What happens when we view the universe as a unification created by ones and zeros, or qubits? There is no separation between space, time, and hyperspace - and extra dimensions are indeed a fantasy.

        When I say "infinity equals the total elimination of distance", you must remember to differentiate between physical infinity (the universe going on and on forever) and what I call electronic infinity (explained below).

        "The inverse-square law states that the force between two particles becomes infinite if the distance of separation between them goes to zero. Remembering that gravitation (associated with particles) partly depends on the distance between their centres, the distance of separation only goes to zero when those centres occupy the same space-time coordinates (not merely when the particles' or objects' sides are touching i.e. infinity equals the total elimination of distance). The infinite cosmos could possess this absence of distance in space and time, via the electronic mechanism of binary digits. To distinguish this definition from "the universe going on and on forever", we can call it "electronic infinity or e ".

        Of course, the difference between "physical" and "electronic" infinity doesn't exist in reality, but we can speak of the difference because we live in the human world where the ones and zeros producing unification can't be seen. Failing to distinguish between the infinities causes confusion and could lead to us saying "infinity equals the total elimination of distance is logically not consistent".

        It's impossible to point to the 4th dimension of time, so this cannot be physical. Since the union of space-time is well established in modern science, we can assume the 4th dimension is actually measurement of the motions of the particles occurring in the 3 dimensions of length, width, and height. The basic standard of time in the universe is the measurement of the motions of photons - specifically, of the speed of light. This is comparable to the 1960's adoption on Earth of the measurement of time as the vibration rate of cesium atoms. At lightspeed, time = 0 (it is stopped). Below 300,000 km/sec, acceleration or gravitation causes time dilation (slowing of time as the speed of light is approached). If time's 0, space is also 0 because space and time coexist as space-time whose warping (gravity) is necessarily 0 too. Spacetime/gravity form matter/mass (see next paragraph), so the latter pair can't exist at lightspeed and photons are massless. I think time dilation is real because it fits in perfectly with the revised gravitational theory I put together in my article. It's just a composite of Newton's and Einstein's ideas that explains - in nonmathematical, layman's language - gravity as a push by gravitational waves that explains dark energy, dark matter, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, tides, orbits, and apples falling on a 17th-century scientist's head. It supports Einstein's idea of gravitational-electromagnetic interaction forming mass, saying gravity is weaker at higher altitudes because it is concentrated in more and more wave packets at lower heights and below a planet's surface - where it corresponds to higher density, magnification of gravity's effects, and slowing down of time because motion of the particles is less in greater densities (particle motion increases at lower density, allowing the universe's highest speed in the vacuum of space).

        Suppose Albert Einstein was correct when he said gravitation plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles (in "Do Gravitational Fields Play An Essential Part In The Structure of the Elementary Particles?" - a 1919 submission to the Prussian Academy of Sciences). And suppose he was also correct when he said gravitation is the warping of space-time. Then it is logical that 1) gravitation would play a role in constitution of elementary particles and also in the operation of the nuclear forces, and 2) the warping of space-time that produces gravity means space-time itself plays a role in the constitution of elementary particles and the nuclear forces. I think mass increase is shown to be real by ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. Mass increase at increasing accelerations is inevitable because the object is encountering more spacetime and gravity (the producers of mass; which also confer mass's equivalent [energy] on cosmic rays that travel far enough through space, turning them into ultra-high-energy cosmic rays). But mass increase cannot become infinitely large since space-time, gravity and mass don't exist at lightspeed. The object is converted into energy which means mass and energy must be equivalent and Energy must equal Mass related to the Speed of Light (E=mc^2, in the words of Albert Einstein). You point out that "As per the equation, any particle traveling at the velocity of light would acquire infinite mass." This paragraph says mass does increase up to the speed of light - but mass is totally converted to energy at Lightspeed instead of becoming infinite. So E=mc^2 appears to only be partly correct because the highest speed possible is Lightspeed. Physically speaking, it cannot be multiplied. Einstein himself proved this. The equation E=mc^2 can be considered a degenerate form of the mass-energy-momentum relation for vanishing momentum. Einstein was very well aware of this, and in later papers repetitively stressed that his mass-energy equation is strictly limited to observers co-moving with the object under study. The version of the equation applicable here is E=m/c^2*c^2. In the case of a proton travelling at Lightspeed, the equation means the energy the proton is changed into equals its mass of 938.27231 MeV/c^2 multiplied by c^2.

        Length contraction (or Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction) - like time dilation, described by a pair of equations known as the Lorentz transformations (named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, 1853-1928) - says a vehicle reaching 90% of lightspeed will, to a non-comoving (stationary) observer, appear to be less then half as long as its rest length ("The Cosmos", a book in the series "Voyage Through The Universe" - Time-Life Books, pp. 42, 44). This is how Albert Einstein described the reality of length contraction in 1911 -

        The question as to whether the Lorentz contraction really exists or not is misleading. It doesn't "really" exist, in so far as it doesn't exist for a comoving observer; though it "really" exists, i.e. in such a way that it could be demonstrated in principle by physical means by a non-comoving observer. ( "Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz". Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509-510)

        We are compelled to use terms like co-moving and non-comoving because we live in the human world where the ones and zeros producing unification can't be seen. What would happen to length contraction, mass increase and time dilation if we could perceive the ones and zeros? All 3 Relativistic effects might disappear, to be replaced by an endless number of ones and zeros at rest (an infinite universe where time is "at rest" i.e. every second that ever existed, or will exist, resembles a frame in a movie film). This "rest" could also be viewed as confirmation of Hidden Variables - an interpretation of quantum mechanics which is based on belief that the theory is incomplete (Albert Einstein is the most famous proponent of hidden variables) and it says there is an underlying reality with additional information of the quantum world. Their identification would lead to problems having exact, instead of merely probabilistic, outcomes - and could also restore a reality that exists independently of observation ("Quantum" by Manjit Kumar - Icon Books 2008, p.379) Exact outcomes that are independent of observation could eliminate variables such as co-moving and non-comoving. I suggest this underlying reality is the binary digits generated in 5D hyperspace.

        I hope my answers give you things to think about. Best wishes to you.

        Dear Sir,

        Reading your post was a pleasure because it was so refreshing and thought provoking. We agree with your first assertion that interconnectedness and interdependence are laws of Nature. Even your sense is not immune from this law, as it is only the instrument used by an observer to observer an observable. But your mistrust of mathematics is misplaced. Mathematics explains only "how much" one quantity accumulates or reduces in an interaction involving similar or partly similar quantities and not "what", "why", "when", "where", or "with whom" about the objects involved in such interactions. These are the subject matters of physics.

        As we have said, number is a property of all substances by which we differentiate between similars. We differentiate objects by space and duration by time. These (objects and duration) are discrete. But numbers are applicable to our perception of everything. Hence as long as perception remains, numbers will exist. It is neither old fashioned nor redundant. If you cannot differentiate "this thing is separate from that thing", then you are not conscious.

        Your "one" and "zero" differentiate not only between them, but also between objects and their concepts that includes "inner" and "outer". Otherwise they are meaningless. By themselves, they do not mean anything. They have to be assigned some values, which will be different for each "one" and "zero". They only conform or deny their existence. In any case, the binary is only a way of expressing higher numbers.

        If you do not accept anything, how do you talk about one extra-dimension and hyper-space? These built on existing dimensions and space. But are these concepts scientifically valid? We see through electromagnetic radiation where one electric field and one magnetic field move together perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both. Hence we have three mutually perpendicular dimensions. By these we differentiate between states of matter: if it has fixed dimension, it is solid. If it has variable dimension, it is fluid and if it is unbound, it is plasma radiation. Since time does not behave like this, it is not a dimension. Where-from you get the extra dimension? From a nineteenth century fiction? Fiction is not science! Space is the ordered interval of substances that also acts like a base or ground for everything that exists. What is hyper-space? Another fiction!

        The inverse square law only stipulates that if one of the parameters are increased, then the other parameter decreases proportionately. If the denominator in one case is made zero (by total merger), the result becomes infinite. But this is wrong mathematics. Firstly, infinity is not a very big number that can be fully perceived. Secondly, a number divided by zero remains unchanged as is explained. If you divide 20 by 5, then what you actually do is take out bunches of 5 from the lot of 20. When the lot becomes empty or the remainder is below 5, the divisor, so that it cannot be considered a bunch and taken away further, the number of bunches of 5 are counted. That gives the result of division as 4. In case of division by zero, you take out bunches of zero. At no stage the lot becomes zero or less than zero. Thus, the operation is not complete and result of division cannot be known, just like while dividing 20 by 5, you cannot start counting the result after taking away two or three bunches. Conclusion: division by zero leaves the number unchanged.

        Gravitation never reduces the distance between objects to zero. It only shifts the barycenter so that the objects revolve around fixed orbits. Can you show us where gravitation reduced two objects to "the same space-time coordinates"? If you talk of black-holes, it is not caused due to gravitation (as has been interpreted by GR), but for the same reason by which protons and neutrons accumulate in the nucleus violating Coulomb's law. We have discussed it elaborately on many forums.

        Newton said both the apple and the Earth are stationary. Gravity pulls the apple to Earth. This itself is debatable, as nothing can be physically "pulled". It is always a push from the opposite direction. The weakening of the stem could not support the mass of the apple, so that it got free and moved in the direction of least resistance. Einstein also told that both the apple and the Earth are stationary, but he reasoned that the space between the Earth and the apple curved, so that the distance between the Earth and the apple became zero with matching distance between the apple and the stem. We wonder, by what mechanism only the space between the Earth and the apple curved leaving all other objects around unaffected! What is so special about the apple that is not in the stem or the tree or al other objects around?

        Einsteinian space-time curvature calculations were based on vacuum, i.e. on a medium without any gravitational properties (since it has no mass). Now if a material medium is considered (which space certainly is), then it will have a profound effect on the space-time geometry as opposed to that in vacuum. It will make the gravitational constant differential for different localities (as seen in the acceleration due to gravity case).

        Doppler effect is used in light, sound, cosmology, and SR (length contraction). Yet, no one used it to SR to point out that the length contraction is only apparent to the observer due to Doppler effect. When you move towards or away from a mountain, the changing angles of the light coming from the mountain and reaching your cornea gives the impression of change in its volume - hence mass and height, which is the same as length in a different direction. This obvious fact is not seen by many.

        Modern science is built on an incremental manner. Theories are built upon "established theories" without continuously evaluating them in the light of the results of latest experiments and observations. This blind acceptance of "established theories" is nothing but superstition. It is perpetuated by the books and papers eulogizing these as "in a brilliant deduction", "with a stroke of genius", "a highly successful theory", etc, to label these theories, which are unwanted misleading information to prevent free thinking and guiding the students in the right direction.

        This has been compounded by the race for going ahead, which prevents students to look back. In the peer group, it generates the cult of incomprehensibility. For this reason, precise definitions are becoming rare in science. They use "operational definitions", which can be manipulated to suit their convenience. Look at the declarations by LHC regarding detection of the Higg's boson. Now there is a rush to change the name of the particle to share honors. Given the clarity level, we wonder how many people applauding the writers in this context really understand their views totally! The hurry also generates reductionism, so that totality of the theories is lost sight of. Hence please think independently - think out of the box.

        Regards,

        basudeba

        14 days later

        Dear Rodney Bartlett

        You have a great faith - it really is very valuable. It would great more if you give a concrete conclusion to our topic.

        http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1802

        Dear Rodney,

        I am shared your ideas in somewhat, that you can convinced from my references in article: I am going to appraise your work because it likely to me.

        I hope my work will be interested you.

        Best wishes,

        George

        FQXi Article

        4 days later

        Hello Rodney,

        I noticed that you mention above that there is just one real Universe - something which I am very much an advocate of. Also I found your essay extremely comprehensible despite the constraints of the contest. I wish my essay was more concise than it is!

        All the best,

        Antony

        4 days later

        Here's the latest article my FQXi entry has led to - "MODERN SCIENCE EMPHASIZES MATHEMATICS. WHAT THE UNIVERSE LOOKS LIKE WHEN LOGIC IS EMPHASIZED (MATHS HAS A VITAL, BUT SECONDARY, ROLE IN THIS ARTICLE)." I posted it on my profile at ResearchGate an hour or two ago

        https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Rodney_Bartlett/?ev=pub_int_doc_dlext

        and it's in the process of replacing an earlier version of the same name at my vixra profile

        http://vixra.org/author/rodney_bartlett

        The abstract is -

        This article had its start with another article, concerned with measuring the speed of gravitational waves - "The Measurement of the Light Deflection from Jupiter: Experimental Results" by Ed Fomalont and Sergei Kopeikin (2003) - The Astrophysical Journal 598 (1): 704-711. This starting-point led to many other topics that required explanation or naturally seemed to follow on - Unification of gravity with electromagnetism and the 2 nuclear forces, Speed of electromagnetic waves, Energy of cosmic rays and UHECRs, Digital string theory, Isolation is an illusion, Dark energy gravity binary digits, Cosmic strings and wormholes from Figure-8 Klein bottles, Massless and massive photons and gravitons, Inverse square quantum entanglement = God evolution, Binary digits projected to make Prof. Greene's cosmic holographic movie, Renormalization of infinity, Physically infinite universe, Colliding subuniverses, Unifying cosmic inflation, Theory Of Everything (emphasizing "EVERYthing") = Bose-Einstein renormalized. The text also addresses (in a nonmathematical way) the wavelength of electromagnetic waves, the frequency of gravitational waves, gravitational and electromagnetic waves having identical speed, the gamma-ray burst designated GRB 090510, the smoothness of space, Self-influence and ESP caused by quantum entanglement in time, and Human involvement in the retrocausality of gravity, electromagnetism and matter. Topics in this article's PS and PPS include - Gravitational waves actually have a much shorter wavelength than gamma rays, but are extraordinarily weak because almost all that energy goes into the formation of matter - How the Law of Conservation works - Mathematicians, physicists and Richard Feynman - Time travel to the past - Interstellar and intergalactic travel - Nonsupernatural God - 5th dimensional hyperspace - Dark Matter - Variable Speed of Light - Trillions of millennia in the distant future.

          Rodney,

          If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, "It's good to be the king," is serious about our subject.

          Jim

          6 days later

          Hello Rodney,

          I wanted to let you know that I passed your posted message on to Zeeya Merali, that I found on the page regarding Steven Kauffmann's paper. He has responded there, and copied your comments to his podcast page, because they appear to be relevant. My thanks also; for some interesting graviton mass links, which I passed on to a colleague Andy Beckwith, who is researching HF gravity waves.

          I have not read your essay yet, but it is on my list, and I'll post any comments or questions here. I hope you have not checked out entirely, because a lot of the other authors were latecomers, like myself. I wish you luck in the contest.

          All the Best,

          Jonathan

          Hi Jonathan,

          I'm glad I could help you and Andy Beckwith.

          No, I haven't checked out entirely. I did for a while, due to the poor reception my entry seems to be getting. It isn't faring any better than my entry from a couple of years ago. And I couldn't see any point in logging in. But I'm really pleased with the response from you and Zeeya Merali - so in the words of Arnold Scharzenegger, I'm b-a-ack! (For today at least - I haven't been able to stop typing all year, and who knows where that typing will take me tomorrow.)

          Thanks for reading my essay sometime. I had to chop nearly half of it to meet length-limits for the contest, but I've been told it's still "very comprehensible".

          Regards,

          Rodney

            Thanks Rodney,

            I downloaded the longer version too, but I'll wait to read that later - so as not to get confused. I need to base any decision about the quality of your essay on the short version, so I'll need to cycle back for more info later..

            Looks interesting, though.

            Regards,

            Jonathan